Lanzer v. City of Louisville

• Decision Date: 05 December 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015 CA 00170.,2015 CA 00170.
• Citation: 75 N.E.3d 752,2016 Ohio 8071
• Parties: Kevin LANZER, Plaintiff–Appellant v. City of LOUISVILLE, Ohio, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

75 N.E.3d 752

2016 Ohio 8071

Kevin LANZER, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.City of LOUISVILLE, Ohio, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 2015 CA 00170.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark County.

Dec. 5, 2016.

Charles W. Oldfield, Dennis Haines, Green Haines Sgambati, Youngstown, OH, for plaintiff-appellant.

James M. Lyons, Jr., Hanna, Campbell, & Powell, Akron, OH, for defendant-appellee Ault.

John D. Latchney, O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Sheffield Village, OH, for defendant-appellees City, et al.

James L. Messenger, Richard J. Thomas, Jerry R. Krzys, Henderson, Covington, Messenger, Newman & Thomas, Youngstown, OH, for defendant-appellee Jeffries.

SHEILA G. FARMER, P.J., W. SCOTT GWIN, J., and JOHN W. WISE, J.

OPINION

WISE, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff–Appellant Kevin Lanzer appeals the May 28, 2015, decisions of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees City of Louisville, Ohio, Patricia Fallot, Richard Guiley, Guy Guidone, Cheryle Casar and Thomas McAllister; granting summary judgment in favor of E. Thomas Ault, City Manager; and granting Appellee William Jeffries' motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶ 2} The facts of the case are as follows:

{¶ 3} On June 25, 2012, the City of Louisville hired Appellant Kevin Lanzer as its Fire Chief. The Louisville Fire Department is an "all-call paid part-time" department. (Ault Depo. at 79).

{¶ 4} The City of Louisville conducts fire safety inspections through the Fire Department. As of July, 2013, the Louisville Fire Department had four designated fire inspectors. (Lanzer Depo. at 21). At the beginning of the year each of those inspectors is given a list, prepared by Capt. Rob Yoder (one of the four inspectors), of the buildings that they are responsible for inspecting. (Id. at 27). The inspectors were given discretion and flexibility as to when they inspect the buildings on their list. (Id. at 21, 28–29).

{¶ 5} In 2012, 111 fire safety inspections were conducted and between January 1 and September 7, 2013, 88 fire safety inspections were conducted. (Ault Depo. at 25, 42).

{¶ 6} On July 31, 2013, Capt. Rob Yoder conducted a fire safety inspection of the property known as Parksite Warehouse # 2, located at 3663 Tulane Street in the city of Louisville. Parksite Warehouse # 2 is owned, in part, by William Jeffries, a local businessman and property owner in the City of Louisville. At the time of the inspection, part of the building was leased to a tenant.

{¶ 7} Captain Yoder's fire safety inspection revealed violations of the Ohio Fire Code, so he issued a notice of the alleged violations. The City Defendants admitted that this inspection was conducted in accordance with Ohio law.

{¶ 8} Jeffries was displeased with the manner in which Captain Yoder conducted the fire safety inspection. Jeffries contacted Ault and asked that he be personally contacted prior to any fire safety inspections at properties he owned but leased to others. (Ault Depo. at 42). Jeffries also expressed his displeasure with the use of red ink in the paperwork used to document fire safety violations. (Ault Depo., pp. 43–45). According to Lanzer and Ault, Jeffries didn't like that the Fire Department documents used red ink because it made it seem like the Fire Department was "hollering at him." (Lanzer Depo. at 44; Ault Depo. at 43–45).

{¶ 9} Ault discussed these issues with Lanzer, and Lanzer instructed his fire safety inspectors to contact Jeffries prior to inspecting any property Jeffries owned. (Ault Depo. at 42). This prior notification policy was only instituted as to Jeffries and his properties, not to other property owners in the City of Louisville. (Ault Depo. at 137–138.) The color of the ink used on the inspection reports was also changed. (Lanzer Depo. at 45–46).

{¶ 10} On August 29, 2013, Captain Yoder re-inspected the Parksite property but failed to give prior notice to Jeffries. (Ault Depo. at 42). Captain Yoder later explained that he thought the special requirement to notify Jeffries applied only to the initial inspection and not the re-inspection. (Lanzer Depo. at 41).

{¶ 11} Jeffries was very upset that he was not notified of the re-inspection. (Ault Depo. at 27–28). Jeffries contacted Ault " * * * and stated very bluntly that he wanted Mr. Lanzer fired and * * * he would go to council to see that that happened." (Ault Depo. at 28, 42). Ault informed Jeffries that, as City Manager, he alone had sole authority to fire Lanzer. (Ault Depo. at 42).

{¶ 12} At both the inspection and re-inspection, Captain Yoder was granted entry to the premises and accompanied on the inspection by a supervisor or manager of the business entity that leased the premises from Jeffries. (Ault Depo. at 122; Lanzer Depo. at 56). There is no evidence the inspection or re-inspection was conducted in a manner that violated Ohio law or the policies and procedures of the Louisville Fire Department. (Ault Depo. at 39–40, 72–73). In fact, Ault and other city officials later met with a representative of the State Fire Marshall's Office and that person, Jamie Snyder, did not indicate that the manner in which the inspections of the Parksite property occurred violated Ohio law. (Ault Depo. at 69–70).

{¶ 13} Even though Captain Yoder had failed to follow Lanzer's instruction to notify Jeffries before any fire safety inspection at one of his properties, Ault determined that Captain Yoder should not be disciplined because it was a new procedure. (Ault Depo. at 47–48). Further, Ault stated that at that time he had no plans to fire Lanzer. (Ault Depo. at 52, 138–139).

{¶ 14} Jeffries approached City Council with regard to this incident. On September 9, 2013, City Council held a special council meeting and went into executive session. Initially, Bill Jeffries, and his brother, Mike Jeffries, were in the executive session. (Rod Guiley Depo. at 32–33). Either Bill Jeffries or Mike Jeffries expressed during that executive session that they did not believe the fire inspection process was business friendly. (Guiley Depo. at 34). Prior to the executive session, Bill Jeffries had met with Councilman Rod Guiley regarding the inspection and re-inspection and discussed with Guiley how the inspections "would impact the * * * relationship relative to the Joseph A. Jeffries Company dealing—or having business with the City of Louisville." (Guiley Depo. at 11).

{¶ 15} During the special council meeting on September 9, 2013, Robert Duffrin, the City Law Director, came out of the executive session and told Ault that: " * * * it was council's intent that [he] terminate the employment of Kevin Lanzer, or be terminated [himself] and have someone else do it." (Ault Depo. at 37, 58).

{¶ 16} Ault understood that council was telling him to fire Lanzer or that City Council would fire Ault, then someone else would fire Lanzer. (Ault Depo. at 63). Ault stated that although he thought it was wrong that he was being told to fire Lanzer, he weighed the impact to himself and his family and determined he had no choice but to follow City Council's instructions. (Ault Depo. at 61–63). Ault called Lanzer and requested that he come to Council's chambers, where he proceeded to tell Lanzer that he was fired. (Ault Depo., at 62).

{¶ 17} The Louisville City Charter gives the Louisville City Manager the sole authority to terminate City officers and employees. The Charter states:

The City Manager shall be the chief executive officer and the head of the administrative branch of the City government. He shall be responsible to the Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City and * * * he shall have power and shall be required to:

(1) Appoint and, when necessary for the good of the service, remove all officers and employees of the City * * *.

{¶ 18} On August 29, 2014, Appellant Lanzer filed a Complaint in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, tortious interference with employment, and civil conspiracy against the City of Louisville, Ohio, Patricia Fallot, Richard Guiley, Guy Guidone, Cheryle Casar and Thomas McAllister (members of Louisville City Council), E. Thomas Ault, Louisville's City Manager, and William "Bill" Jeffries.

{¶ 19} On October 3, 2014, Appellee Jeffries filed a Motion to Dismiss.

{¶ 20} On November 24, 2014, City of Louisville moved for partial summary judgment on Lanzer's wrongful termination claim.

{¶ 21} On December 29, 2014, Appellee Ault filed a Motion for Summary Judgment an all claims.

{¶ 22} On January 20, 2015, Appellant filed an amended Complaint.

{¶ 23} On February 5, 2015, Appellee Jeffries filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against him in the Amended Complaint.

{¶ 24} On May 28, 2015, the trial court entered separate judgment entries granting the City Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment; granting Ault's motion for summary judgment; and granting Jeffries' motion to dismiss.

{¶ 25} Appellant dismissed his remaining claims against the City Defendants with prejudice.

{¶ 26} Appellant now appeals, raising the following Assignments of Error for review:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶ 27} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

{¶ 28} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED AULT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

{¶ 29} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED JEFFRIES' MOTION TO DISMISS."

I., II.

{¶ 30} We shall address Appellant's First and Second Assignments of Error simultaneously as we find they are closely related and raise similar issues. In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Louisville City appellees on his wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim. In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Ault on all of his claims: wrongful termination, tortious interference with...